Of the arguments employed by those who support the SYSTEM OF MANAGEMENT by which the Royal Society is governed, I shall give a few samples: refutation is rendered quite unnecessary--juxta-position is alone requisite. If any member, seeing an improper appointment in contemplation, or any abuse in the management of the affairs of the Society continued, raise a voice against it, the ready answer is, Why should you interfere? it may not be quite the thing you approve; but it is no affair of yours.--If, on the other hand, it do relate to himself, the reply is equally ready. It is immediately urged: The question is of a personal nature; you are the last person who ought to bring it forward; you are yourself interested. If any member of the Society, feeling annoyed at the neglect, or hurt by the injuries or insults of the Council, show signs of remonstrance, it is immediately suggested to him that he is irritated, and ought to wait until his feelings subside, and he can judge more coolly on the subject; whilst with becoming candour they admit the ill-treatment, but urge forbearance. If, after an interval, when reflection has had ample time to operate, the offence seems great as at first, or the insult appears unmitigated by any circumstances on which memory can dwell,--if it is then brought forward, the immediate answer is, The affair is out of date--the thing is gone by--it is too late to call in question a transaction so long past. Thus, if a man is interested personally, he is unfit to question an abuse; if he is not, is it probable that he will question it? and if, notwithstanding this, he do so, then he is to be accounted a meddler. If he is insulted, and complain, he is told to wait until he is cool; and when that period arrives, he is then told he is too late. If his remonstrance relates to the alteration of laws which are never referred to, or only known by their repeated breach, he is told that any alteration is useless; it is perfectly well known that they are never adhered to. If it relate to the impolicy of any regulations attaching to an office, he is immediately answered, that that is a personal question, in which it is impossible to interfere--the officer, it seems, is considered to have not merely a vested right to the continuance of every abuse, but an interest in transmitting it unimpaired to his successors. In the same spirit I have heard errors of calculation or observation defended. If small errors occur, it is said that they are too trifling to be of any importance. If larger errors are pointed out, it is immediately contended that they can deceive nobody, because of their magnitude. Perhaps it might be of some use, if the Council would oblige the world with their SCALE of ERROR, with illustrations from some of the most RECENT and APPROVED works, and would favour the uninformed with the orthodox creed upon all grades, from that which baffles the human faculties to detect, up to that which becomes innocuous from its size.